For this bet to be won tho, there needs to be a shipping label and/or tracking number.
There is, but I'd prefer not to give the trolls my personal info.
Then where are the posted photos taken by yourself at your delivery location? Re-posting photos of devices at the factory doesn't count.
Why not? I'll update my forum avatar at some point, but don't feel like cleaning up my desk right now.
Another thing that bugs me is that Luke was put into service by BFL a while back so he could work on their product. During this time he stayed in a hotel. If the money for the hotel was payed out of BFLs pocket i see this as a compensation for his involvement with the product and that would make him a BFL employee by my definition.
Your definition is irrelevant. An employee
means "one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below the executive level" in English. The legal definition is more specific, and makes it completely clear that I am not an employee.
Yeah, and i use this definition:
'An "employee" is defined as "a preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions" or "
an individual in the excepted service (other than a preference eligible) . . . who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service." Ramos v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24378 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2009) '
(
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/employee/)
So if your expenses were payed in exchange for specific work done at the request of BFL and you were not a temp at BFL you could be seen as an employee. But actually more likely as a contractor.
In any case, by your definition i'd say you were an employee as well because you were employed to do some work for BFL in exchange for a financial compensation and your position was lower than executive level.
"Excepted service" in all definitions I can find refers to a class of people working for the federal government.
"An employer has the right to control an employee. It is important to determine whether the company had the right to direct and control the workers not only as to the results desired, but also as to the details, manner and means by which the results were accomplished. If the company had the right to supervise and control such details of the work peformed, and the manner and means by which the results were to be accomplished, an employer-employee relationship would be indicated.
On the other hand, the absence of supervision and control by the company would support a finding that the workers were independent contractors and not employees. Whether or not such control was exercised is not the determining factor, it is the right to control which is key."
This makes it clear I am not an employee.
